I have this theory that Justin Trudeau, who you definitely know by now has said all kinds of things, doesn’t care about bad press. I also have a parallel theory that, when Trudeau makes an emphatic statement about something, he’s not sure how he’ll defend it until a gaggle of reporters shove their microphones in his face. I’m being a bit facetious, of course. But let’s look at yesterday’s events: Trudeau both defended the now defunct long-gun registry, and called it a public policy failure, in basically the same breath. He said he’d vote to save it again, just as he did several months ago, but also that he’s “not going to resuscitate it,” because it’s too divisive. That messy explanation has John Ivison basically crafting future Conservative attack ads on the front page of the National Post. And it has people like me pointing that out. And it has future commenters beneath this post saying one thing or another about Trudeau’s lunacy, or at least his consistent inconsistency.

I don’t think he cares. I don’t know exactly why he wouldn’t care, because Ivison’s fictional attack ad, or something that closely resembles it, is probably already in production somewhere near the fiery gates of Hell. Maybe it’s because Trudeau really, really can’t wait for that fight. Maybe he’s daring his enemies to throw everything they have at him. Maybe he’s just that arrogant.

Advertisement

Post navigation

Justin Trudeau keeps getting our attention

I still don’t see what’s so confusing about Trudeau’s position.
He wouldn’t have killed the registry, preferring to change it.
Now that its gone and would take incredible effort and cost to bring back, he’s interested in finding other alternatives.
Again, what’s complicated about that? Sheesh.

But when Harper has a nuanced position, would you or Nick Taylor care about that? Of course not. And that’s the difference here: Trudeau’s comments need to be carefully discussed and defended while anything Harper has said or will say will be taken as black or white. Justin is counting on that fact. But most voters won’t be fooled by Justin’s foolishness. Let him grown up and defend himself just like Harper has learned to defend himself. Politics isn’t for softies.

Not true at all. In fact for years I kept hoping that their initial defensiveness would wear off and that they’d eventually start offering thoughtful insights on their decisions. To no avail obviously.

I was a card carrying PC after all. I’m a fiscal conservative first and foremost. I would love to actually consider them a voting option of some sort. As it is however, I would’ve sooner voted Reform than I would CPC. At least they seemed honest about their intentions.

These conservatives however are all about the “fight”. Might is right to them, and if anyone embodies the notion of the ends justifying the means, its these people.

There is a very important difference between nuance and lies–fine as that line can be at times–but they clearly don’t know the difference… or care for that matter.

Phil King on December 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm

So a nuanced position would be to say that the LGR has merits but taking the position that the LGR has no merits must be seen as a fighting position. You’re right: I don’t get it.

Francien Verhoeven on December 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm

No, again, it’s not that simple.

From my perspective they never even made an attempt to justify their decision to the broader public. Theirs was a policy looking for a reason. They did what they did to appease a voting block, rationale be damned, facts be damned, the decision having been made before they even formed government.

Ironically what they ended up doing wasn’t really that far out of line with what I found acceptable, they just did a terrible job of selling it to people like me: people who want a clear, reasoned policy that supports broad and clearly articulated principles.

I don’t have any love of authority for any reason. I’m all about the government keeping its nose out of my business generally speaking.

So of course there is no love lost between me and a group that seems to think it is above giving reasons or debating in good faith, while weilding the greatest power in the land.

Phil King on December 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm

From my perspective they did give a clear explanation: that the LGR did do nothing to prevent additional killings. And the CPC has always said that.

Much better for you then to stick with people like Trudeau who says he wants to lead the people but has no proposals as to how to go about it.

Better to vote in politicians who won’t take a stand on one thing or another before they form government. Better not knowing beforehand what position they are taking (again: see Trudeau).

Have fun with that.

Francien Verhoeven on December 4, 2012 at 2:41 pm

So you cite a single unprovable point, and that is enough for you? All the other reasons for people to register deadly weapons in a civilized society are for naught?
Well then, I see you fit in quite well with the tribe mentality–antiquated as it is–where simple authority matters so much more than a broadly established consensus.

Phil King on December 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm

And Justin and the LPC can prove that the LGR did save lives? Really.

Let’s just satisfy you by saying that I am tribal, that everyone who disagrees with you is tribal, and that the mentality of the CPC is nothing but tribal. Anything of reason to be said on this board is all for naught anyways, so why not let you go at it. Conservative baaaaaad. Liberal goooooood. Have fun. Wave your little flags while time passes by. (Ever wondered why these comment boards end up the way they are?)

Francien Verhoeven on December 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Uhhh, that is nonesense. Ask any cop in Toronto if they appreciated knowing if there was a gun in the house when on a domestic violence call. Believe me, ( I have no less than 4 cops as neighbours), there were lives saved by the registry, both of Police, and wives (mostly), as the Police would respond pretty damned quick if there was a gun in the house, and they would exercise extreme caution.

Why do I bother. on December 4, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Here the police responds under the impression that guns could be held on the premise at any given time. Such would be the smart cops.

Now go talk to EmilyOne and her friends. They like it to go back and forth all day talking about nothing, the way you do, all day long. Have fun!

Francien Verhoeven on December 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm

First they’d have to look up “nuanced”. Then after the laughter died down, they’d have to find a way to apply the principle…

Take a look at their QP antics – or really any of their approaches to anything – and tell me honestly why you think they are capable of nuance.

KeithBram on December 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm

First you have to realize that Taylor and Wherry are performing their dance of nuance day in day out. Once you realize that you’re being taken as a fool, then we’ll talk some more. Go do some realizing.

Francien Verhoeven on December 4, 2012 at 7:19 pm

I don’t need the aforementioned to tell me what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.

The fools (mostly) sit on the government side. Some perform daily; others watch quietly until time for applause. None of them seemingly know how to listen to the question asked and actually formulate a genuine reply. None of them seem to realize that bills are to be debated and problems addressed before passing them into law.

I could go on, but why bother? you’ve clearly been drinking the CPC koolaid by the gallon.

KeithBram on December 4, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Does it require incredible effort and cost? Or just for “law abiding citizens” to finally support the, y’know, law? (Much of the cost were from mis-steps putting it in place which won’t be repeated, many of the holes came from people deciding that rules were for other people)

I think it’s pretty clear most of cost runover was related to software/info glitches, not dissenting farmers – although that was almost certainly a factor. In fact if my old memory serves me right the CRAP was accused of encouraging civil non compliance and deliberate gumming up of the works. I can’t really blame the farmers/hunters for that. But i can blame the CRAP crowd.
Makes Trudeau’s point though…it was divisive. The Cons didn’t invent that part.

I doubt anyone would accept that line of reasoning but seem to when Canada’s favourite political celebrity is involved. I think there’s a lot of Trudeau cheerleading going on here. He blew it. Let’s just leave it at that and move one. This is beginning to sound like Harper supporters twisting themselves to explain the gov’t's actions.

You’re analogy doesn’t even come close to working George. Health care is hardly a divisive issue in this country – at least amongst moderates.
Point about the cheerleading though. People like me who think he’s underestimated will have to get use to his earnest and slightly frenetic style.

So maybe he becomes leader, then PM, and changes jurisdiction to let provinces decide.
Win/win for provinces, people of the provinces, and makes them deal with the divisiveness of the policy instead of feds. Federal polices should unite not divide.

I don’t think there’s any reason that a province can’t keep it’s own info if it chooses. It’s just that while the feds can push a national programme they help fund, they can’t stop provinces also funding or keeping a programme they choose to keep. There’s some weird distinction like that in this case. Which is presumably why the province[QC] in this case has gone to court.

Yes well some people see the black and white mentality you espouse as either deliberately obtuse or evidence of a lack of insight or knowledge on a topic.
False dichotomies maintain ignorance. For the ignorant that is apparently a source of comfort. For the rest of us it is just painful to watch and annoying to put up with.

lol, and yes, I think he has an awesome campaign running. I’ve been watching (and doing) Politics for a longtime, and not as a Liberal either. At first I thought, Wow, the name still has a lot of drawing power’ but my mouth drops at least once per week as he homes in on the Conservative voters like a heat seeking missile. a majority of over 45′s would vote for him today. And he ain’t no dummy, he will have ther Conservatives fighting a defensive game for the next 2 years, while he controls the agenda. I have been scratching my head as to why the Liberals have surrendered the centre ground to focus on the dippers for so long, and finally, here comes a Liberal with a plan to take down the Conservatives. q’elle surprise, it is working too.

This is going to be a titanic and perhaps fun struggle if it continues to play out like this. Trudeau, having a tendency to over nuance something to death[ at times anyway] and the CPC and their trolls who never met a nuance they could either grasp or tolerate to live.

I for one don’t think it’s at all clear [ as NTV implies] that Trudeau is going to be seriously hurt by any of it.

Whether the public buys into what JT is selling is another matter. But why not? They seemed to either not care or not seriously question the veracity of the puerile attack ads the Tories have been churning out since getting their butts on to the govt side of the house anyway.

IT will be the ultimate irony of ironies if Trudeau comes to power – not because they care, but because as the tories insist, they don’t – not seriously critiqued on his vision for the country. Largely because the press [and the public] gave him the same bye on content they essentially gave Harper. AND we hear the same wails of protest falling on deaf ears that preceeded Harper.[ or at least after it became clear he was no real reformer at all] But this time from the Conservatives.

My hope is of course is that Trudeau has something meaningful to say to the country – other than Harper is a meanie. So far he’s impressed me on that score.

If I implied that it would hurt Trudeau, I didn’t intend that. Certainly, his opponents think it will. My only point was that might be exactly what Trudeau wants them to think. Admittedly, I’m nuancing my opinion about as much as Trudeau nuances many of his opinions.

I’ll check my post, but i thought i said you didn’t imply it would hurt him…at least i meant to. Do you see it as an actual strategy on his part then?
My bad. Over nuanced it myself i guess. Anway, to be clear i agree with your point.

I’m surrounded by millenials who tell me they won’t vote Liberal precisely because JT is the front runner for leader. They’re voting NDP despite Mulcair as leader. I point out the contradiction, they say if Joyce Murray were front runner for the L, they’d change their minds because she wants to play differently. So I ask what is it about JT you so dislike, they say couldn’t care less who his father was, w/o PET he’s just another very shallow male poli. who has never met a payroll or known student debt.

Hardly matters what the millenials say, even if the ones you know are representative, less than 20% of them will bother to vote. If they actually did vote, then they would matter to somebody, somewhere. Too bad for them, not too bad for trudeau, because over 50% of Canadians over the age of 45 DO want to vote for him, and believe me, that matters waaaay more than all the millenials put together

whos to say the libs dont have there amo for the cons.you think the cons and there news paper writers know it all.delmastro,penashue,mckay,clement.you think these guys are out of the woods in 2015.i doubt it.people in glass houses should never throw rocks.

Overexposure is the biggest risk to Justin Trudeau in his climb to the top of Canadian politics. So the members of fourth estate are simultaneously his creators and those who seed his destruction with their failure to find anything else interesting to write about.

You may be right, but doesn’t underexposure create some risks too for leadership candidates? I rather think that Martha H-F and Marc Garneau — who we have heard of — and the other unknowns are at more risk than the overexposed Trudeau.

“Reeling
from criticism about his gun registry stance, Trudeau first tried to
redefine failure, then gave up and said he supported it.”

I’m not generally a big critic of the media – overall i think they do a fair to good job. And maybe this is just a case of the boot being on the other foot. But i’m struck by some of the leading coverage of Trudeau on this particular question[ others too maybe??]
Note the …reeling insinuation…is he?…he gave up…did he? And the cute little lead in headline…Trudeau supports failure.
Nit picking maybe? I suspect we’ll see a lot of this media driven narrative in Trudeau’s case. But, maybe they do it to everyone and i’m not paying enough attention?
Sauce for the goose id sauce for the gander i suppose. It’s just so much more noticeable when you care.

This is off the topic of the day – Trudeau. Why only highlight papers in ON? I realize it’s not realistic to track every major newspaper, but only highlighting the TO & Ottawa papers seems a bit out of touch. Highlighting other papers on a rotating basis or based on relevance to current nation news would be interesting to give a more national perspective. Just a thought.

I think I have him figured out!!! – he is actually Conservative and intends to lose the LPT leadership bid then cross the floor join us Tories and make a play for harper’s spot in 2015 – has to be it as nothing else makes any sense. It’s either this or maybe he is just not smart enough!

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Sign In / Sign Up

With your existing account from

With an email account

Commenters who signed up before June 26th, 2014 will have to reregister on our new, social-friendly login system. The good news? The process should only take a few minutes, and you're welcome to use the same email address.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.